Re: Implicit isset in ternary operator

Do we really need that as operator? Why not using new functions for special cases. Don't see much difference between $a = $b ?: $c; and (for example I used "i" for "if") $a = _i($b, $c); Just a manner of getting accustomed to it. A little bit more thinking: This could be implemented directly into any program/project, so it is a manner of how to use PHP and not of why it isn't added to the language. PS: Would it be possible to implement functions like ":?()" or "!?()" ? Currently this is not allowed by syntax. 2012/7/18 Rafael Dohms <listas@rafaeldohms.com.br>: > $width = $config['width'] ?: 300; > > The only reason for this to not work is: it throws a notice if the array > key is not there (which is the case we are covering anyway) > > This is basically because the ternary operator does not do a internal > implicit isset, only an empty. > > Does this seem like a possible improvement we can work on? Anyone > interested in championing the change? -- Alex Aulbach